51
51
Dec 9, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 51
favorite 0
quote 0
doma cases are slightly different. i think the doma challenge is much narrower challenge and i expect it to be much more optimistic about a kind of flat-out ruling that this is unconstitutional by the supreme court. the reason i think that, melissa, doma doesn't require any state to change its marriage laws. all it says is the federal government is going to return to what the federal government was always doing before. we were talking about federalism issues earlier in the show. in the history of marriage, the federal government has always deferred to state definitions of marriage. let me give you an example. some states allow first cousins to marry, others don't because of prohibitions, incest concerns and things like that. whatever the state definitions are, the federal government has always followed the state definition. if a state says they're married, the federal government says for the purposes of benefits they're married. in 1996, the defense of marriage act departed from that practice and said the federal gover
doma cases are slightly different. i think the doma challenge is much narrower challenge and i expect it to be much more optimistic about a kind of flat-out ruling that this is unconstitutional by the supreme court. the reason i think that, melissa, doma doesn't require any state to change its marriage laws. all it says is the federal government is going to return to what the federal government was always doing before. we were talking about federalism issues earlier in the show. in the history...
160
160
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> i've heard from the justice department on doma and not with prop 8 and makes it all the more curious. >> the justice department has, again, had a leadership position on overturning the defensive marriage act but if you take the legal position they have advocated in the defensive marriage act cases and you apply it to a situation like proposition 8, all of those anti-gay laws go by the wayside and really a question of them taking the arguments they made in one case and making them again in this other case. >> i want to read from an associated press article on the fear and hope some have regarding gay marriage. gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the supreme court's decision to take up the case of california's man on same sex issues and nine states allow partners to marry or will soon. 41 states do not. of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state's constitution. >> i'm not that worried and the reason is because i think that the supreme court would have only taken these cases if they thought that they were ripe for a decision that moves the country forwa
. >> i've heard from the justice department on doma and not with prop 8 and makes it all the more curious. >> the justice department has, again, had a leadership position on overturning the defensive marriage act but if you take the legal position they have advocated in the defensive marriage act cases and you apply it to a situation like proposition 8, all of those anti-gay laws go by the wayside and really a question of them taking the arguments they made in one case and making...
146
146
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 146
favorite 0
quote 0
when the supremes get down to assessing doma, we can expect the conservatives to defend doma and the liberals to strike it down. the comp significance of the majority will be determined by the votes of chief justice roberts who has shown he's willing to leave the conservatives if he feels the court's legacy is in peril and kenne kennedy. he wrote the constitution prohibits laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status. it appears doma will get tossed in the dust bin of history. the courts other gay rights case comes from california which gave gays the right to marry and then with proposition 8 took it away. taking away an existing right because of animus was prohibited by the court in a '96 decision authored by justice kennedy. but where the doma case asks can the federal government discriminate against married couple, the prop 8 case asks can states bar gays from marrying. kennedy
when the supremes get down to assessing doma, we can expect the conservatives to defend doma and the liberals to strike it down. the comp significance of the majority will be determined by the votes of chief justice roberts who has shown he's willing to leave the conservatives if he feels the court's legacy is in peril and kenne kennedy. he wrote the constitution prohibits laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status. it appears doma will get tossed in the dust bin...
160
160
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government is meddling with the state definitions of marriage. with respect to the prop 8 case, i think again kennedy, because of these two cases i mentioned, is likely to be sympathetic but may be incremental. he may say something along the lines of one state or eight states have to flip. i don't think he'll flip all 41. >> we always appreciate your valuable insight. we hope you'll stick around for the next few months and continue to provide that as we wade through what is undoubtedly going to be a fairly complex case, as well. good saturday to you, sir. thank you for your time. >>
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government...
104
104
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 104
favorite 0
quote 0
if we first talk about doma, if it is struck down, what does that mean nationally? >> well, it means only that if you live in a state that permits same-sex marriage and you are in a same-sex marriage, that the federal government will recognize your marriage. doma does not require states to do anything. it doesn't require anybody to do anything. but right now it prevents the federal government from granting recognition to same-sex marriages like, for instance, in new york. if that is struck down, the people who are married in states that allow it will get full federal recognition. >> which is over more than 1,000 federal benefits that go along with that. >> it's very important. it would be very significant. >> jonathan, we talk about prop 8 in california. if that is struck down, does that mean marriage equality then for all intents and purposes is legal in all states? does what happens in california then change the relevance for 49 other states? >> well, this all gets to how the supreme court rules. you know, i think it was the ninth circuit -- the ninth circuit cour
if we first talk about doma, if it is struck down, what does that mean nationally? >> well, it means only that if you live in a state that permits same-sex marriage and you are in a same-sex marriage, that the federal government will recognize your marriage. doma does not require states to do anything. it doesn't require anybody to do anything. but right now it prevents the federal government from granting recognition to same-sex marriages like, for instance, in new york. if that is...
190
190
Dec 7, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 190
favorite 0
quote 1
so i think that doma law goes by the wayside. the second question is an equal protection question and goes specifically at the california referendum which -- >> the proposition 8. >> the proposition, proposition 8, which makes it illegal under california law to have gay marriage. they will look at that under the equal protection clause. i think it's a little bit hazardous to anticipate where the court will go on that question, and i would be reluctant to do that, but that's kind of an equal protection question. the request he is will the court be ahead of where the public is or behind the public. this is a question that eventually sooner or later, probably sooner, the public will come around to recognize and already is showing by the polls that marriage equality should be considered a fundamental constitutional right. >> professor peterson, to julian's point, despite its rulings on the president's health care law, on immigration, this court maintains a conservative tilt. is this necessarily good news for supporters of same-sex ma
so i think that doma law goes by the wayside. the second question is an equal protection question and goes specifically at the california referendum which -- >> the proposition 8. >> the proposition, proposition 8, which makes it illegal under california law to have gay marriage. they will look at that under the equal protection clause. i think it's a little bit hazardous to anticipate where the court will go on that question, and i would be reluctant to do that, but that's kind of...
139
139
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 139
favorite 0
quote 0
or would, if the supreme court rules against doma. >> if the supreme court rules against doma, nothing changes. >> if they rule for california? >> uh-huh. >> how about all of those other state constitdeletions? automatically invalid dated. >> the 9th circuit, when they decided the case they ruled very narrowly. they said because california had the right, california same-sex couples had the right to marry. then it was taken away from them, that this was similar to the 1996 supreme court case when the colorado voters had amended their constitution and it was a case rommer versus evans in which the voters had taken away ability for any city in colorado to have a non-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation. the court there had said you can't take away people's rights to enter the system. >> bill: the court could say it's up to the states? >> the court could say you can't take away rights. >> bill: uh-huh. >> you have already granted. that would only impact the state of california. but they could also say that the 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees fundamental rights
or would, if the supreme court rules against doma. >> if the supreme court rules against doma, nothing changes. >> if they rule for california? >> uh-huh. >> how about all of those other state constitdeletions? automatically invalid dated. >> the 9th circuit, when they decided the case they ruled very narrowly. they said because california had the right, california same-sex couples had the right to marry. then it was taken away from them, that this was similar to...
71
71
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 71
favorite 0
quote 0
the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raises the bigger question. now, as it comes to the supreme court, it comes in a very narrow way. the court of appeals, which agreed with the trial court, that proposition 8 striking down gay marriage in california was unconstitutional, it ruled in a very narrow way. it said california was wrong to grant the right and then take it away. you can't do that, apeeldz court said. if the supreme
the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must...
151
151
Dec 9, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 151
favorite 0
quote 1
let's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. i
let's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're...
172
172
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 172
favorite 0
quote 0
the end of the doma act. how do you see this? >> one of the first things that usually comes to my mind when i think about prop 8 was that you had the people of california, they looked at having this particular law upheld as simply because they're the ones who wanted it to happen. and the courts there decided no forget about it. it's simply not going to happen. not only that but if you remember, the donors who were supporting this law, they had a lot of people come after them during that whole scenario. also remember, a lot of businesses who whether it be say wedding photographers, wedding deejays, bank gbank get hauls wo may not be catering to same-sex marriages, they have been attacked very often by lawsuits because they may not necessarily be catering to same-sex marriages. saw this over in new mexico with elaine photography when a photographer said i don't care to photograph same-sex marriage ended up being sued. this lawsuit is still going on right now. >> jimmy williams, welcome back. just explain to me. i'm sure there's a l
the end of the doma act. how do you see this? >> one of the first things that usually comes to my mind when i think about prop 8 was that you had the people of california, they looked at having this particular law upheld as simply because they're the ones who wanted it to happen. and the courts there decided no forget about it. it's simply not going to happen. not only that but if you remember, the donors who were supporting this law, they had a lot of people come after them during that...